The impact of post-procedure interpretation of ERCP X-ray films by radiologists on patient care: should it be routine or selective?

Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Oct;58(4):549-53.

Abstract

Background: Review of ERCP x-ray films by radiologists is routine, but the utility of this practice is unproven. The aim of this study was to assess whether the routine post-procedural interpretation of ERCP films by radiologists alters patient management.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 212 ERCPs followed by a prospective analysis of 112 ERCPs was performed. Comparative ductogram interpretations were categorized as: I, complete agreement; II, minor findings reported only by the radiologist; III, findings reported only by the endoscopist; and IV, major findings reported only by the radiologist that altered or should have altered management.

Results: In the retrospective analysis, 289 ductograms were identified, and interpretations were classified as: category I, 73%; category II, 16%; category III, 10.7%; and category IV, 0.3%. In the prospective study, interpretations of 167 ductograms were analyzed and classified as follows: category I, 84%; category II, 11%; category III, 5%; category IV, none.

Conclusions: Post-procedure interpretation of ERCP spot x-ray films by radiologists adds little to patient management. Selective consultation with radiologists would appear to be more appropriate than review by radiologists of ERCP spot x-ray films on a routine basis.

Publication types

  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde*
  • Diagnostic Tests, Routine / statistics & numerical data*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Prospective Studies
  • Referral and Consultation
  • Retrospective Studies